The New Bigotry

Brandon Ferdig gets a deeper look into the dangers of ideologism after a heated dinner table debate.

The entirety of racism in America’s history is as nuanced as it is disgusting, but one thing you can say about it is that it’s improving. For most people, the idea of a black boss or a mixed race couple isn’t nearly as taboo or controversial as it once was. No, I’m not saying racism is eliminated, but I want to recognize this progress.

I want to do so in light of the fear we still have towards those who, in another way, are not like us—a fear that is as blatant and acceptable as it divisive and destructive.

♦◊♦

I was at a dinner party recently. At the table to my left was a middle-aged father, and to his left was his teenage son. The topic of file-sharing, or internet piracy, was brought up. I admitted that I found the idea of equating file-sharing to theft to be an inaccurate one. They retorted with their reasons for why file-sharing is theft. To them, what was a black-and-white issue was a matter of grays to me. No matter who was right or wrong was beside the point.

What does matter is this: Our discussion gradually built—terser, louder, and more personal—until insults about both sides being evil were tossed back and forth, seeing to our “conversation’s” sudden end.

How did we get so worked up?

Well, they made their stand on the issue, and I was offended; and when they challenged me, I was troubled. I was threatened by them and their views and reacted—as they did to me.

I think most of us can relate, albeit maybe not with file-sharing.

But just because these reactions are normal, and can be so innate, doesn’t make them acceptable. The trouble is that today, this kind of fear is socially acceptable. No one wants arguments, but few stop to think about the emotional reactions that prompt them are a problem, and fewer still question the bigotry born out of these fears, pouring out of the airwaves of radio and television, targeting those who simply see the world differently than us. I call this “ideologism,” and we’ve yet to deal with this adequately as individuals and as a society.

First let’s address what, exactly, ideologism is.

♦◊♦

The best way to do this is to compare it to any fear we have that manifests to create judgment, prejudice, dislike, hate, violence, and feelings of discomfort and/or being threatened by those who are different than us. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are always good examples because they demonstrate criteria for the above results that, by themselves, are not the cause for our alarm. In other words, race, sex, or sexual orientation do not equal a threat, and disliking someone or fearing someone because of these is dumb … and harmful.

One’s ideology, though, is considered a justifiable reason to react out of fear and anger. Indeed, it is less cut-and-dry than the previous three examples of bigotry, because ideologies do shape the world, and it is possible for a person of another ideology to be a threat.

I thought the father and son at the dinner part were so. Their defense of the lawsuits that record companies have taken out against college students and single moms made my heart beat faster and face warm. I saw this father/son combo as being the representation of an injustice—of injustice, period. Most of us “need” a just world. We fear being victims (or others being victims).

But my reaction came from no logical place.

Legal precedent had no bearing; whether file sharing was perfectly okay or strictly prohibited didn’t matter to our discussion. These two guys weren’t suing the single moms. Am I pirating music? Would they tell on me if I was? The worst that could happen is that they become the rulers of the world and force everyone to pay for music. Even if that was the case, why was I physically reacting?

Stripped of any teeth, we see that what remains is just a plain fear of differences. (Sound familiar?) Similarly, if I may assume, the father/son saw me as the embodiment of the injustice of the hard-working artist, unable to make a living because of piracy, and they were threatened by me. What we’re simply left with are two intolerant parties made so by our ideologism.

There’s a need for disagreement and debate and not liking the opinions of others. However, thoughtful concern about the influence these disagreeable opinions may have is not the same thing as thoughtless, fearful reactions toward people just because they see the world differently.

But we get confused. Our emotions tell us that this time an actual threat lies before us: that person’s “liberalism” or that group’s “right-wing extremism.”

(And in another comparison to other bigotries, let’s bring up the labeling. Phrases like “a gay” and “a black” are in the dustbin of divisive historic rhetoric, but do we not still always say “he’s a liberal” or “he’s a Republican” in a derogatory fashion? Just like “a gay” is not “a gay,” but a man who happens to be gay, why is “a Republican” also not a person who happens to be a Republican? How odd would it be to say, “She’s Republican”?)

Fear has free reign to run the hour when how much/whether they are a threat isn’t considered. We react without hesitation, regardless of the circumstances, and I think we can agree that the amount we do so is almost always way overboard in response to any amount of the actual threat. We use social ills to justify our reactions the same way any bigot uses them to rationalize their bigotry.

Welcome to the evolution of justifying fear, and as long as we continue to, the extent to which we despise, ridicule, and fear those who think differently about the world, will create the harm and division that we let separate us from others.

It’s also the nonchalant way in which ideologism is pronounced in everyday vernacular that is so troubling and hearkens back to the previously dealt-with bigotries of our society’s divisive past. We take in the talk shows on TV and radio that espouse and feed off of this fear. Fox News hosts will toss out pejorative names to refer to those opposing their ideology. I’ve heard MSNBC use the term “tea bagger” with the same air that would be fitting for an old segregationist.

These shows and the hosts are hoisted up in two ways: by our straight-up fear of those on the “wrong side,” supposedly ruining the world—ruining our lives!— and let’s face it: many of us have a doomsday streak. The other way is our need to feel superior to our opposition. Both are there because we’re insecure and afraid.

Fear not. Differences are okay and, in fact—surprise, surprise—often have much to offer.

At the end of the dinner party discussion, albeit littered with emotion, I came to see the topic of file-sharing in a new light. Dropping some of the fear of “big bad record companies,” I could better appreciate the stance of the musician, who despite her wishes, and because of unchecked file-sharing, has her work copied indefinitely. Just like racism prevented us the plain benefits of working with others, so too does ideologism prevent us from understanding and learning from others.

♦◊♦

So let’s address and overcome this hurdle by following the same script we’ve used to address other forms of bigotry: by realizing their futility, their lack of logic, and their harm. In short, we must outsmart it by seeing it for what it is, and through self-actualization.

It makes sense in the grand scheme of things that fear concerning obvious differences (race, sex) would be “outed” (understood and deemed harmful and wrong) before differences that are internal. The former are immediate. You see someone and BAM, you judge them. But ideologism is subtler, waiting for an opportunity to come out and pounce.

Recall times when having a political discussion and another person is revealed to believe in what you don’t stand for. Recall your favorite talk-show host lambasting the “bad” guys and you feeling revved up about the attack.

We’ve kicked the can of bigotry down the sidewalk and have faced racism, sexism, and homophobia. What’s seen is that there hasn’t been so much a removal of the fear, as a fresh out-letting of it. Enter the arena that may indeed be colorblind and nonsexist, but is fearful and subsequently hateful just the same. So the next time someone says something to get your goad, notice your emotions rise and do nothing more. When the fear defines you, when you act with it in charge, you lose. We all lose.

Morals are an evolving matter; a moving target. When we learn what is harmful, we address it—sometimes we attack it by calling out the bigots; sometimes we address it with compassion by understanding its roots and causes. The next moral frontier always seems odd—even uncomfortable. This will be the case with ideologism. Still, we’ve worked hard and reduced a lot of prejudices in the last 100 years; now it’s time we reach a new plateau in our societal elevation and evolution and address our fear toward those who share different opinions, different politics, and different ideologies.

About Brandon Ferdig

Brandon Ferdig is writer from Minneapolis, MN. He shares his personal growth pieces, human interest stories, and commentary at his blog. He is currently writing a book titled New Plateaus in China, a compilation of travelogue, personal experience, human interest, and social observations from China. You can follow Brandon on Twitter @brandonferdig.

True indeed. This is kinda what I was trying to get at in “Treating the Hate”. Even after starting off with fair intentions one can be so blinded that they no longer care about the issues at hand and begin anticipating a faceoff with anything and everything that appears to be an opponent.

I really enjoyed this piece. I’m a published philosopunk with some pretty divisive views on ethics, politics, governance and religion. It’s pretty common for me to get right into the thick of things with people and I sometimes wish I was better at approaching these subjects in such a way as to defuse the emotional baggage while being free to clearly state the finer points of my arguments/criticisms.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 5 months ago

I submit that if there is a firewall between the discussion and the real world, there will be little contention, unless, say, we have theologians or philosophers arguing. If there is the slightest possiblity that the person we’re talking to wants to promote, say, the Cloward Piven strategy, or racial discrimination, or some other diminution of our freedom such as gun control, it can get contentious right away. If the discussion is in good faith, it can be civil. But if, with the example of gun control, the other party tries the 90% of guns used in Mexico’s drug war… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Peter Houlihan

5 years 5 months ago

Even in cases where fallacious arguments are being made, I still don’t think its a good idea to get mad.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Brandon Ferdig

5 years 5 months ago

On second thought, Richard, maybe it’s not so much a line to draw but a distinction to make, between the co-occuring “thoughtless reaction” and the “thoughtful concern”. Obviously in this piece, I’m trying to isolate those innate reactions that end up dividing us.

Thanks for your comments, though. It got me further thinking about this!

I like this article very much. So thanks for writing it. This issue of how to reduce the reactivity on our political discourse is central to my thinking of late. Over the last ten years the internet has allowed for a style of contentious dialogue that has phased in from the impersonal towards the personal over time. We all experienced the Huffington Post style of debate whereby we argued venomously with strangers. I think these arguments did hone our understanding of the political spin we were confronting nationally, but it also allowed and even encouraged a disrespect for civilized discussion.… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Kitti

5 years 5 months ago

I’m going to quote you on my Facebook!

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Copyleft

5 years 5 months ago

Fortunately, we now have the Internet to keep all debates civil and rational!

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Peter Houlihan

5 years 5 months ago

🙂

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Kitti

5 years 5 months ago

hee hee heeeee!!!!

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 5 months ago

Brandon. How do you distinguish between objection to ideas based on fear of ideas and objection to ideas based on fear of real-world consequences?
A person pushing an ideology which, if applied in the real world would be unjust, or catastrophic would logically seem to be associated with the injustice or the catastrophe, either due to ignorance or malice. What’s to like?

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Brandon Ferdig

5 years 5 months ago

You don’t have to like it, Richard. Nor should you if it’s harmful.

But yeah, it is a tough line to draw. I was simply making observations about how ridiculous the conversation’s been skewed into the territory of the “catastrophic” as you put it and to the point where we scoff at, make fun of, and disparage those who simply have different views of world than you.

This skewing is made possible by our over-reacting such as I described at my dinner party.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Peter Houlihan

5 years 5 months ago

Maybe draw the line at when your response is emotional. Even if your fears are valid they can kill your argument. I think theres alot to be said for dispassionate and reasonable debate.

I loved this article too. You got, in more academic focus, my point in my Heresy piece. I appreciate your words here. These conversations and this work is vitally important.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Richard Aubrey

5 years 5 months ago

Problem with the article is that it presumes the differences remain a matter of discussion. In fact, one side or another is going to prevail in the real world, more than likely, and the fear is that, when it actually happens, when it shows up in the real world, real world injustices will be done. Without that possibility, the entire thing would be considerably less exasperating.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Peter Houlihan

5 years 5 months ago

If an argument is unjust its unjust, it doesn’t mean that we can’t consider it.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Brandon Ferdig

5 years 5 months ago

This article doesn’t presume this at all, Richard. I said ideology can be a threat, that it shapes the world, and something to take seriously. But, “thoughtful concern about the influence these disagreeable opinions may have is not the same thing as thoughtless, fearful reactions toward people just because they see the world differently.”

The former is no different than any other kind of bigotry. But it is harder to detect as it hides behind or masks as a just cause worth fighting for. Thus I wanted to bring up this fear, this ideologism.

I loved this article. Like pretty much everyone, I’ve run into the trap of fearing/hating someone because their opinions are different. Something that’s helped, really, is to have friends with completely different politics and ideologies and yet we discuss them all the time. Sometimes it gets heated, but it never ventures into name-calling or hatred, because at the end of the day, we’re all still friends. I dunno…I think talking to people and really listening to them is key, because chances are there’s a reason they think/believe what they do.